PDA

View Full Version : Shen Hao Phillips clone...



tim atherton
4-Aug-2005, 17:00
http://www.badgergraphic.com/search_product2.asp?x=4477

tim atherton
4-Aug-2005, 17:04
but over a pound heavier

Dean Tomasula
4-Aug-2005, 17:23
Aluminum and magnezium alloy at only 9.7 pounds. Not bad for an 8x10.

Oren Grad
4-Aug-2005, 17:31
Dean, the genuine article is more like 7.9 pounds. That's a big part of its appeal, along with the excellent rigidity.

Donald Hutton
4-Aug-2005, 17:39
I'de be very interested to see how the knock-off holds up - Dick's cameras rely on pretty exotic materials and construction methods to make the progressive design functional. I suspect that this knock-off may be completely flawed in the same way that the SW45 clone is. FWIW, Shen Hao make a knock-off of the Ebony SW45. Looks identical and seems functionally identical until you realize that the whole concept of the SW45 is a "wide angle" friendly 4X5 which is very fast to set up. The Shen Hao copy requires a separate bag bellows to use ultra wides, which really ruins the concept... The lack of flexibility in the bellows completely destroys the design concept of the camera!

It says a great deal for Dick's foresight as a camera designer that his ideas are being copied by knock-off merchants.

Scott Schroeder
4-Aug-2005, 17:39
Oren, your saying the shen hao is really 7.9 lbs?
hmmmm....interesting
thanks

tim atherton
4-Aug-2005, 17:41
No Scott,

the real Phillips Compact II

tim atherton
4-Aug-2005, 17:41
And 5.9 for the Explorer

Oren Grad
4-Aug-2005, 17:48
And about 7.5 for my Compact, an earlier, simpler version with reversing back but without the "feet" and the lead-screw focusing.

Michael Kadillak
4-Aug-2005, 18:14
Many over the ages have said that imitation is the highest form of flattery. But if I were Dick Phillips (who hopefully followed through on a patent application when he designed his camera line) I would be looking for a royalty check in the mail.

I understand that 8x10 cameras that offer a low price point and are light weight are highly desirable, but obvious blatant copy of a existing designs particularly from honest hard working and decent private camera maker create a scenario that pushes my buttons big time.

But maybe that is just me....

Frank Petronio
4-Aug-2005, 20:01
Badger Graphics is a great dealer, but this bothers me.

What would be really cool would be if they would pay Dick for the design and have him supervise the manufacturing and quality control. I'd pay an extra $500 for that, and I'd still be getting a great bargain.

Scott Schroeder
4-Aug-2005, 20:08
Ahh!!

And those are hard to come by!

I was going to be getting a phillips 4X5 next year, but there is this

urge for something a bit bigger :)

I know this place can be a bad influence :D

Scott

Jorge Gasteazoro
4-Aug-2005, 20:09
You can all correct me if I am wrong, but isnt the back swing out of wack? Most of the 8x10 I have used, including my 80 year old Korona 12x20 had the back swing rotate about the vertical axis. With this camera it seems that the swing not only rotates but is displaces in the direction of the swing. I get the feeling that this would be a very hard camera to focus if one is using scheimpflug. Am I wrong?

Oren Grad
4-Aug-2005, 20:30
Jorge -

Yes, a Phillips camera with the current design that has the back floating on those two "feet" would not be the camera of choice if your work makes extensive use of precisely calibrated rear swings. That's just one of several tradeoffs that Dick has made in the design in order to achieve his overriding goal, which was a camera that combines ultralight weight with excellent rigidity for general field use. As it happens, my own older Phillips model has no rear swing at all, and I've never missed it.

Frank -

The last thing anyone should be pestering Dick Phillips to do is to waste his time doing quality control for a Chinese camera factory. He's 70 years old this year, fortunately still going strong, but those of us who like his cameras are lucky indeed that he still finds it possible and enjoyable to build a batch of them each year. He could just as easily kiss the whole business goodbye - he doesn't need to be doing it. As for the rest of his time, he's enjoying seeing the world, spending time with his family, etc., and all I can say is, more power to him!

Mike Lopez
4-Aug-2005, 20:37
Where are you guys getting the specs for this? And can I have a link to Phillips information? Thanks.

tim atherton
4-Aug-2005, 20:53
"You can all correct me if I am wrong, but isnt the back swing out of wack? Most of the 8x10 I have used, including my 80 year old Korona 12x20 had the back swing rotate about the vertical axis. With this camera it seems that the swing not only rotates but is displaces in the direction of the swing. I get the feeling that this would be a very hard camera to focus if one is using scheimpflug. Am I wrong?"

yes, basically - it's a compromise - you get some rear swing, with lightness and rigidity.

I know Nick Nixon and Geoffrey James (and I think Hiroshi Sugimoto) got Dick to make theirs with the back running straight on rails with no swing so you don't have to fiddle making sure the back is aligned (no swing)

tim atherton
4-Aug-2005, 20:56
http://www.shen-hao.com/8x10.html

For Phillips, you'll have to phone Dick.

There's some info on the Explorer here, but as DIck tends to tweak each batch of cameras, it's a bit out of date (as is the contact info I think)

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/phillips.html

Jorge Gasteazoro
4-Aug-2005, 20:59
Is not so much the swing Tim, but that the swing travels. IOW instead of rotating around the axis, let say turns and at the same time moves in the direction of the swing. I guess it could be exlained as a combination swing/shift.....I dont think I would like that. But as you all say, it is a compromise, just one I am not willing to sign on to.

tim atherton
4-Aug-2005, 21:00
"Badger Graphics is a great dealer, but this bothers me.
What would be really cool would be if they would pay Dick for the design and have him supervise the manufacturing and quality control. I'd pay an extra $500 for that, and I'd still be getting a great bargain."

Badger also sold the rip off Toho's didn't they?

My guess is it's pretty hard to enforce the patent stuff in China.... (if everything has actually been patented properly that is)

Oren Grad
4-Aug-2005, 21:03
Mike -

Dick doesn't have a website. But you should read Michael Mutmansky's nicely written review of the 8x10 Explorer:

www.largeformatphotography.info/phillips.html (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/phillips.html)

The Explorer is almost identical to the Compact II, except that it has a fixed (horizontal) back.

If you're interested in the 4x5, you can read my review here:

www.phototechmag.com/previous-articles/nov99-grad/grad1.htm (http://www.phototechmag.com/previous-articles/nov99-grad/grad1.htm)

Oren Grad
4-Aug-2005, 21:16
There's some info on the Explorer here, but as DIck tends to tweak each batch of cameras, it's a bit out of date (as is the contact info I think)

Dick does tweak things from batch to batch sometimes, but the fundamental design of the 8x10 and larger cameras has been unchanged since the Compact II arrived, and Michael's review still gives a pretty good idea of what the cameras are like. The 4x5, although it shares most of the same principles, is rather a different beast.

Current contact info is:

R.H. Phillips & Sons
2283 Old Pine Trail
Midland, MI 48642

tel 989-835-7897
fax 989-839-9745
rhphill@sbcglobal.net

The email can be iffy - best way to contact Dick is to call or write (snail mail). Bear in mind that occasionally he can be away for a few weeks at a time on travel, so don't despair if he doesn't get back to you immediately.

Dean Tomasula
4-Aug-2005, 21:23
"I suspect that this knock-off may be completely flawed in the same way that the SW45 clone is."

Don,

I'm curious to know in what way you think the Shen-Hao HZX45-IIA is "completely flawed."

David Luttmann
4-Aug-2005, 21:38
I'd like to know too Dean. When my movement needs aren't met with a DSLR & T/S lens with CS2, I've never had any problem using my HZX45 with bag bellows for interior shots. The workmanship, while maybe not up to the standards of Ebony or Layton, is still great for the money. I figured, cheaper camera body allows for more $ for the lenses. I shoot with a 47, 75, 90, 150. I've never found the use of the bag bellows to be a big deal. Considering the camera is less than 1/2 the cost of a lot of the mentioned competition, it's not a bad deal. I've been using mine a fair bit over the least year with no problems.

Mike Lopez
4-Aug-2005, 21:41
Thanks for the information, guys.

tim atherton
4-Aug-2005, 22:34
"There's some info on the Explorer here, but as Dick tends to tweak each batch of cameras, it's a bit out of date (as is the contact info I think)
Dick does tweak things from batch to batch sometimes, but the fundamental design of the 8x10 and larger cameras has been unchanged since the Compact II arrived, and Michael's review still gives a pretty good idea of what the cameras are like. The 4x5, although it shares most of the same principles, is rather a different beast. "

the main difference in 8x10 is between the Compact II and the Explorer. They a basically similar, but the Explorer has a fixed horizontal back (which means the bellows only need to be 8x10+ not 10x10+) and the bellows are slightly shorter I think. As well, the latest batch was going to use Technika boards instead of sinar sized boards.

All of which add up to a significant savings in weight for the Explorer - but with obvious compromises. But if you shoot mainly landscapes and cityscapes and only a few verticals a year... it's probably the sturdiest/lightest/most compact 8x10- you will find.

The Compact II offers you somewhat more flexibility for a bit more weight and bulk.

But it's not the cameras to be taking detailed 8x10 close-ups of something, for example (although that's what I've been doing with mine this week - bellows out to the max, 3" from a bronze Hindu goddess....)

Donald Hutton
4-Aug-2005, 23:24
Dean and Dave

If you read carefully, I am referring to a knock -off of the SW45 - the model is TFC45, not the HZX45-IIA - it may have been discontinued as I no longer see it on their website (and if it has been discontinued, that would make perfect sense for the reasons I mentioned above). I know all you Shen Hao HZX45-IIA owners are extremely defensive of your cameras and the rationale of your purchasin decisions (why, I can only wonder), so there's really no need to rehash any of the same old stuff here again. I'm all for cheap entry points into large format - I simply wish that large format evolution was not copied by knock-off shops - have a little think about where things will evolve over the next 50 years if all efforts are simply poured into copying the ideas of others as cheaply as possible. I find the complete lack of respect for intellectual property rights to be almost as worrying as the decisions of the end users who tacitly support the lack of regard for these tenets of civilized society by making their economic decisions with the same disregard...

"When my movement needs aren't met with a DSLR & T/S lens with CS2". If your clients are happy with that sort of product, you should be extremely grateful - in my experience, architectural clients paying decent money are far more demanding. That said, DSLRs are bread and butter for a lot of commercial work; although I do think you are seriously compromising the quality of your work if you are shooting architecture with them as your main tool. On the other hand, in the big picture, that's good for business for those who are not compromising...

Henry Suryo
5-Aug-2005, 05:01
Jorge,
I think the way the rear swing is supposed to be used is you have one of the locks partially tightened and the other loose. This way it's like an asymmetrical swing. Depending on which way you need to swing, basically you focus on one side of the GG on a near point then swing the other side to focus on a far point or vice versa.

David Luttmann
5-Aug-2005, 07:01
"although I do think you are seriously compromising the quality of your work if you are shooting architecture with them as your main tool. On the other hand, in the big picture, that's good for business for those who are not compromising..."

A compromise how? Most architectural work is produced for advertisments, brochures, etc, where output size rarely goes above 8x11 or 11x17. Current high end DSLR output exceeds the resolution of the printing process at those sizes and as such, any extra resolution gained by using 4x5 is lost to the printing process.

So, once again, we have an opinion of compromise that fails the final real world test. It doesn't matter how demanding your client is. At the sizes most deal with, your argument doesn't hold water. End of story!

tim atherton
5-Aug-2005, 07:48
"I simply wish that
large format evolution was not copied by knock-off shops - have a little
think about where things will evolve over the next 50 years if all efforts
are simply poured into copying the ideas of others as cheaply as possible.
I find the complete lack of respect for intellectual property rights to be
almost as worrying as the decisions of the end users who tacitly support
the lack of regard for these tenets of civilized society by making their
economic decisions with the same disregard..."

well that's been happenign for well over 50 years with cameras and most everythign else - so we must be there by now...?

Jorge Gasteazoro
5-Aug-2005, 08:24
Most architectural work is produced for advertisments, brochures, etc, where output size rarely goes above 8x11 or 11x17

LOL....

Dean Tomasula
5-Aug-2005, 08:27
Hi Don -

I certainly don't mean to stir up any trouble here. As you've said, we've all been down that road before.

I am just curious as to your reasoning on this point.

I mistakenly thought you were referring the the HZX. But you're correct, the TFC has been discontinued. I'm not sure if it was discontinued because it was a "flawed" design or not though.

By the way, I really don't have a need to defend my Shen-Hao purchase to anyone (except my wife, but then, she bought me the camera). Us Shen-Hao owners love our cameras (however misguided you may think we are). I'm sure I could love a Phillips or an Ebony as well.

I agree with your point about knock-off designs. But innovation costs money. There would be no cheap entry points into LF if it weren't for knock offs. Maybe it would be better if there weren't, I don't know. But with new innovative camera designs will come higher and higher prices.

I'm not so sure it's a lack of respect for intellectual property rights. I think it may be more of a case that there is only so much you can do with a view camera. The design can be changed and tweaked only so far. The basic structure of a view camera remains the same for every manufacturer. Its the materials, machining and employment of the movements that distinguishes them from one another. It's also the price. Personally, I can't afford to spend $5,000 on a camera (as much as I'd like to). I saw the new Layton L-45A camera at Photo East last winter and fell in love with it. But it costs $4,000. That's way too far out of my league.

I also agree with you about digital, but that's a different argument for another time.

Donald Hutton
5-Aug-2005, 08:33
Dvae

You've the same guy who claimed on this forum a while ago that :"The results I've seen from the Better Light can pretty much match 8x10 film". There's an "end of story" quote for you!

I'd suggest to you that shooting "home theater" set-ups for brochures and advertising may not actually encompass everything to do with architectural photography. Have you ever been commissionded by an architect for a shoot? I have yet to do an architectural assignment where a good chunk of the end product has been presented in sizes of 11X14 or smaller. Where the shoot is not presented as a set of chromes (most common scenario, especially for publication, still...), large prints are normally the order of the day - not little 8X10s. I shoot for an architectural firm locally who like the end product on b&W fiber.... There's not a huge amount of consistency in the desired final product, but my experience has been that there is a very consistent theme of very high quality - which you cannot get with T/S lenses and the 1DsmarkII (that is my own personal hands-on experience). High-end DSLRs are wonderful tools for the right job - as are 4x5 view cameras with sheets of chrome.... so as far as your final real world test, it sounds like your idea of "architectural work" is actually more like "product shooting" which as I mentioned, is an ideal application for a DSLR... The fact that you presume that output for an architectural assignment seldom exceeds 8X11 or 11x17 (both of which I have to say are sizes I have never heard of, let alone had requested) makes me doubtful that you have too much experience shooting architecture at all.

David Luttmann
5-Aug-2005, 09:16
"8X11 or 11x17 (both of which I have to say are sizes I have never heard of, let alone had requested) makes me doubtful that you have too much experience shooting architecture at all."

Never heard of those sizes, eh? They are magazine sizes. Obviously we go after different markets. A majority of interior and exterior work in the market is not huge B&W fiber prints like you suggest. In fact, neither myself, nor local photographers that I associate with print any B&W fiber work for interior or exterior work (home theatre is just one example). If you're printing 40x50 exterior, then large chromes have the advantage. For publication, which obviously you don't deal with if you aren't aware of common production sizes, there is little to no advantage.

Donald Hutton
5-Aug-2005, 09:43
All publication destined work I do gets submitted as chromes.... If you're having to do all the pre-press work for your publications, so be it - we are in very different markets. I never suggested that the majority of the work is huge fiber based prints - I simply presented as an example, that I have a client who requests that as output (he is in fact the only one). The example was of variety of output requested - not sure how you got confused.... If you choose not to read what I have written, please don't respond to it.

On print sizes, I have obviously heard of 8.5x11 - letter size - (and I suppose the double page spread at double that would be 11x17), but you specifically mentioned 8x11 again - no sorry, I've never come across a request for 8x11.

David Luttmann
5-Aug-2005, 10:02
"I shoot for an architectural firm locally who like the end product on b&W fiber..."

I'm not confused....and I read just fine. You wrote the above. As you can see, it states that firm you work for likes the end product on B&W fiber.

As well, funny how you'd never heard of 11x17, but in your response you now do.

I'll leave it at that.

Donald Hutton
5-Aug-2005, 10:16
"A majority of interior and exterior work in the market is not huge B&W fiber prints like you suggest."

Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

There's a lot of confusion Dave.... TGIF

Gregory Gomez
5-Aug-2005, 15:20
I own a Phillips Advantage 8 x 10-inch view camera with 30 inches of bellows draw. Its weight is nine pounds. While the Shen Hao has a similar appearance, it is not a copy of the Phillips camera. The controls on the Shen Hao have a somewhat different execution, and perhaps better in their usability. The overall appearance of the Shen Hao is also better, at least from the photo, but the Phillips has its own charm, and is very rigid. I don't know whether the Shen Hao has the same level of stability. If I were buying today, I would consider the Shen Hao and the Zone VI 8 x 10, which I also own.

Matt Powell
6-Aug-2005, 13:20
It seems odd that Badger is carrying this new 8x10, but not the well-received teak/steel model that comes in at the same price. Or has Shen-Hao discontinued that one?

David Luttmann
6-Aug-2005, 15:23
"A majority of interior and exterior work in the market is not huge B&W fiber prints like you suggest.

Please explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

There's a lot of confusion Dave.... TGIF"

Uhh, Don,

Hate to be the one to tell you this, but the overwhelming majority of advertising work, as well as production work for architects themselves, is done in color. B&W represents less than 5% of the market. Are you trying to convince us of otherwise? Thus, it's a pretty easy conclusion to make. I question how much work you do in the market if you think B&W fiber output exceeds color output.

Oh, and trying some of the Betterlight equipment might just remove some of the cocky tone in your post.

I'm done here.

Donald Hutton
6-Aug-2005, 18:14
Exactly: you are the fool who can't read what I originally posted - as I said before, if you cannot read, don't respond. I never said that the majority of architectural work was done in B&W - I have no idea where you arrived at that. I can only presume that you have some big issues that you need to resolve with yourself.

By the way, I now completely understand why you obviously know so little about the subject: a littel google of yourself reveals that you actually are a "wedding/portrait photographer" (or at least pose around various forums as one). Your expansive list of postings on DPreview had me laughing for a long time... Stick to what you know and take a basic reading course - it will serve you well and you may even help avoid making a complete *** of yourself.

David Luttmann
6-Aug-2005, 18:55
Yawn!

Jorge Gasteazoro
6-Aug-2005, 19:37
it will serve you well and you may even help avoid making a complete *** of yourself.

Good advice but too late Don... :-)